Friday, December 28, 2007

Miscarriage news round-up: Later December

Stories from around the world over the past 2 weeks:

Charges against a shocked Pennsylvania woman who placed her miscarried fetus in her freezer while she sought guidance as to what to do have been dropped. Perhaps there are details that have been omitted from this article, but I have to ask: what the f*ck is wrong with that DA, bringing charges against this poor woman in the first place? I suspect this will be one of those stories that bothers me for weeks after reading it. (And I may have to start a "What-the-f*ck-is-wrong-with-people story of the week" feature.)

Another story of a miscarrying woman not receiving appropriate treatment at a New South Wales, Australia hospital. Apparently, the fetus had died a month earlier, but the woman was twice told that the bleeding she was experiencing was normal. The hospital disputes her account. Lest anyone think this is an Australian issue, it happened in Canada too.

Following up on the story of the British woman who miscarried while suffering work-related stress: The woman was ten weeks pregnant at the time of the loss -- the first article had its information mixed up. This article reports that a tribunal found in her favor, which may result in a significant judgment. The tribunal's findings were on her claims of indirect sex discrimination and unfair dismissal based upon the employer's refusal to grant her request for a modified work schedule. She dropped her charges that the employer's behavior had contributed to her miscarriage.

As if experiencing miscarriage didn't suck enough in and of itself, the physical effects may be longer term. According to this article, a recent study (looking at old data) has shown that a miscarriage or abortion increases a woman's risk of premature delivery and low birth weight in subsequent pregnancies. The risk increases with the number of prior miscarriages or abortions. But the data being looked at is quite old, as far as medical science is concerned -- from the late 1950s and early 1960s. Given that the link is hypothesized to be a result of scar tissue and infection in the cervix and uterus, the advancement in medical science in the intervening 40+ years could minimize or eliminate this connection in the modern era. More coverage here and here. (This article and this one fail to mention the fact that the data is not current.)

4 comments:

Interesting news. I agree that they shouldn't have brought charges against that first woman, but why in the world did she do nothing about it for a month? I also wonder at the validity of a study using 40 year old data.

You know, I was interested in that last article you mentioned and it's use of scar tissue as evidence. I never knew that having a miscarriage left behind scar tissue that could be seen later on, but when I miscarried in April, my doctor, during the U/S just prior to the M/C, said that she saw scar tissue that she suspected was caused by two earlier M/Cs that just happened so early on that I never knew I was pregnant in the first place. (Just thought I was having screwy/heavy periods.) But seeing this kind of makes it gel in my mind, even if the study is so many years old.

About Me

P and I got married in the summer of 2005, three years after we got engaged. We started trying to conceive two years later and were incredibly lucky to succeed on the first try. Sadly, it wasn't meant to be, as there was something wrong with the baby's heart and it stopped beating. Miscarriage is super common, but we were still shocked it happened to us. This is our story -- a story of loss, trying again, and life in general.